March 11, 2014

Russia, the largest country on earth in territory, may be adding some more if it annexes Crimea. Granted, with its ice-free port, beaches, and scenery, Crimea would be fairly distinctive within Russia, but it does seem as if Russia were pretty far into diminishing marginal returns from acquiring more land.

I'm reminded of a 1914 conversation recorded in the memoirs of the French Republic's ambassador to Russia, Maurice Paleologue. Russia's former finance minister Sergei Witte, the formidable organizer of the Trans-Siberian railroad and negotiator of the favorable peace treaty that he conjured from the wreckage of the 1904-05 war with Japan, explains to Paleologue:

"This war's madness," [Witte] said. "It has been forced on the Tsar's prudence by stupid and short-sighted politicians. It can only have disastrous results for Russia. France and England alone can hope to derive any benefit from victory. . . . and, anyhow, a victory for us seems to me highly questionable."

[The French ambassador replied:] "Of course the benefits to be derived from this war---as from any other war---depend upon victory. But I presume that if we are victorious Russia will get her share, and a large share, of the advantages and rewards. . . . After all, forgive me for reminding you that if the world is now on fire it is in a cause which interested Russia first and foremost, a cause which is eminently the Slav cause and did not affect either France or England."

[Witte:] "No doubt you're referring to our prestige in the Balkans, our pious duty to protect our blood brothers, our historic and sacred mission in the East? Why, that's a romantic, old-fashioned chimæra. No one here, no thinking man at least, now cares a fig for these turbulent and vain Balkan folk who have nothing Slav about them and are only Turks christened by the wrong name. We ought to have let the Serbs suffer the chastisement they deserved. What did they care about their Slav brotherhood when their King Milan made Serbia an Austrian fief? So much for the origin of this war! Now let's talk about the profits and rewards it will bring us. What can we hope to get? An increase of territory. Great Heavens! Isn't His Majesty's empire big enough already? Haven't we in Siberia, Turkistan, the Caucasus, Russia itself, enormous areas which have not yet been opened up? . . . Then what are the conquests they dangle before our eyes? East Prussia? Hasn't the Emperor too many Germans among his subjects already? Galicia? It's full of Jews! Besides, the moment we annex Austria and Prussia's Polish territories we shall lose the whole of Russian Poland. Don't you make any mistake: when Poland has recovered her territorial integrity she won't be content with the autonomy she's been so stupidly promised. She'll claim ---and get---her absolute independence. What else have we to hope for? Constantinople, the Cross on Santa Sophia, the Bosphorus, the Dardanelles? It's too mad a notion to be worth a moment's consideration! And even if we assume a complete victory for our coalition---the Hohenzollerns and Hapsburgs reduced to begging for peace and submitting to our terms---it means not only the end of German domination but the proclamation of republics throughout Central Europe. That means the simultaneous end of Tsarism! I prefer to remain silent as to what we may expect on the hypothesis of our defeat."

[Paleologue:] "What practical conclusion do you come to?"

[Witte:] "My practical conclusion is that we must liquidate this stupid adventure as soon as possible."

Another failed voice in 1914 against the war was Rasputin, who foresaw endless piles of dead Russian peasants.

By the way, French ambassador to St. Petersburg Maurice Paleologue is an interesting example for assessing economic historian Gregory Clark's new book on the persistence of high-status surnames. Paleologue had the crucial and difficult job in 1914 of holding together the ideologically bizarre alliance between his own Republic of France and the Czarist autocracy. It may not have hurt that he, the son of Romanian exiles, used as his surname his grandmother's maiden surname, a name with extraordinary dynastic resonance in Czarist circles:

The name became Paléologue in French language spellings; the family's relation to the Palaiologos Byzantines is doubtful (Alexandru's ancestors first claimed it at the end of the 17th century).[1]

The Palaiologos family was the last ruling dynasty of the Byzantine empire, 1259-1453. Sophia Palaiologina, the niece of the last Orthodox emperor in Constantinople, married the Grand Prince of Moscow Ivan III, thus providing the genealogical link justifying Moscow's view of itself as the rightful Third Rome, heir to the Second Rome, Constantinople.

Sergei Witte seems like he was a pretty smart fellow. A Russian George Kennan.

Foreign policy discussion is always filled with patriotic bias, ignorance, pet theories, bombast - it's like children playing with toy soldiers. Neocons exemplify this to an extreme.

So it's always surprising, almost shocking, to come across someone who combines the deep knowledge and self-restraint to avoid that and be a voice of reason.

That is how I felt when I read Kennan's Long Telegram. It's also the impression I got from Kissinger's academic writings, although his actual performance as Secretary of State was thuggish (although it's not his fault for inheriting a terrible situation in Vietnam and elsewhere.)

These nations unless they nuke up as quickly as possible and produce a launch on warning posture, will get eaten up, absorbed, by Russia.

Why?

Because Putin able as he is, presides over a fundamentally rotten society that Putin has made worse, not better. It is flat, like Germany after the Kulturkampf, with no mediating organizations between State and people. No labor unions, no civic organizations, no Church (co-opted completely by Putin), nothing to demand a limit to Oligarch and Bureaucrat rapacity and allow small-scale private wealth creation from the bottom up.

Hence Putin must increase the scope of the State, more territory, more subject peoples to tax and oppress, more resources to plunder. This was the model of much of antiquity, from the Egyptians to Babylonians to Persians to Romans to Arab and Turkish Muslim Empires. It works until the subject peoples stage a revolt, usually because the center finally weakens and a non-serf oriented power comes to the fore to challenge it.

But guys like Putin or Bismarck trade short term gain for long-term disaster. Because the pressure is on the now.

"The ultimate objective of American policy should be benign and visionary: to shape a truly cooperative global community, in keeping with long-range trends and with the fundamental interests of humankind. But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus also of challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book."

"Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. Russia without Ukraine can still strive for imperial status, but it would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state, more likely to be drawn into debilitating conflicts with aroused Central Asians, who would then be resentful of the loss of their recent independence and would be supported by their fellow Islamic states to the south. China would also be likely to oppose any restoration of Russian domination over Central Asia, given its increasing interest in the newly independent states there. However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as its access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia."

Territory is Russia's defense. The further an enemy has to travel in hostile territory the harder it is for them to win e.g. Mongols.

This reminds me of a Russian proverb that ends with "how much land does one man need?" I'll rephrase it. How much land does one country need?

Territory may have been Russia's best defense, but that was all in the past. Modern warfare changes that somewhat. This is not 1289, nor 1812, nor 1941 anymore. And why should Russia have some sort of privileged double standard when it comes to land and territory?

If a German were to say, what Germany needs is more territory, he'd be branded as a Nazi so fast, the world's head would spin. If an American, or Canadian, or Australian, or New Zealander were to say it, he'd be branded as an imperialist and racist. If an Israeli were to say it, he'd be a Zionist. If an Arab or Muslim were to say it, he'd be a Jihadist.

SO WHY THE BLOODY DOUBLE STANDARD FOR RUSSIA??????

Although at the same time territory containing lots of people who hate you is more trouble than its worth - so south and east Ukraine might make sense but West Ukraine not so much.

At last, some common sense.

Have the Russians ever wondered WHY so many people hate them collectively, and would rather die than cooperate in their empire-building? Hint: stop thinking like paranoid left-wing Jews and seeing Nazis in every corner. I'm not exaggerating. Khrushchev, the so-called moderate, actually believed that all 9 million Hungarians were potential Nazis that needed to be "taught a lesson" in 1956.

South Ossetia and Abkhazia broke away from Georgia in 1992 and the 2008 Russian/Georgian war ended with South Ossetia and Abkhazia still independent from Georgia. The only difference is that Russia now recognizes them as independent. So there has been no change for 22 years

While the Crimea has had thousands of Russian troops for 200 years or more

One point. Ukraine has two constitutions, the older one with a powerful President and the 2004 one with a weak President.

Failure to follow the 2004 Constitution is what got Yulia Tymoshenko in trouble since she did not have the power to sign a gas deal with the Russians.

However then the Ukrainian Supreme Court threw out the 2004 constitution and Viktor Yanukovych then signed an agreement extending the Russian base right in Crimea from 2017 to 2042 with possible five year extensions

But then Yanukovych was overthrown and the new government reinstated the 2004 constitution and opening up the big possibility that the next step would be to make Yanukovych extension of the Russian base right null and void and making the legal case that Russia would lose its base in 2007

At this point Russia decides that taking over government buildings and declaring new governments is the way to go.

I think it's pretty funny how the hawks are painting Obama as weak on this--they're really getting to have their cake and eat it too.

Obama's only weak to the extent he's not in control of policy, and he sure doesn't seem inclined toward neocon destabilization. Obviously he can't start a war over this, that's laughable.

(He just needs somebody heavier than John Kerry--the more I see John Kerry the more absurd his nomination for president becomes. Did he look this inept before? Was W that bad? Scary!)

But looky there, western Ukraine is split off and the country's either a simmering headache for Russia for years or the Nato/EU vice is that much tighter as the western half finds its home in the decadent West. What are the hawks really bitching about? Somebody's fighting back?

But there is a legitmate question as to how much outside influence tipped events in Ukraine--which means someone in the Mencian Cathedral is mounting a more effective foreign policy that the White House!

And Putin's just mounting an aggressive defense, from his point of view salvaging Crimea and the Black Sea ports he already had anyway. Hey, I'm a native Californian, I look at all that coastline and, well, if I was Putin I'd be threatening nukes to hold onto it.

Paleologue's memoirs are published in the format of a day-by-day diary of the key months of the summer of 1914, but, assuming he kept a diary, his draft entries were presumably heavily edited and/or rewritten after the war. "Gossipy and unreliable" is one scholar's critique.

No one here, no thinking man at least, now cares a fig for these turbulent and vain Balkan folk who have nothing Slav about them and are only Turks christened by the wrong name.

Serbs aren't Turks. Even the Turks aren't Turks, not in the original sense, anyway. Serbs are a mixture of Slavs and the pre-Slavic peoples of the Balkans. Geneticists would know the exact composition, but judging by appearances 50/50 wouldn't surprise me.

"Isn't His Majesty's empire big enough already?"

In reuniting with the Crimea, Russia is welcoming back about 2 million ethnic Russians. Ukrainian nationalists are coercing millions of Russians stuck on Ukrainian territory into abandoning their identity. All state education is in Ukrainian. The national myths drummed into Russian children in the Ukraine are West Ukrainian. It's not about territory. It's about helping one's own in need, saving them from assimilation into a hostile culture.

"My practical conclusion is that we must liquidate this stupid adventure as soon as possible"

In retrospect Russia shouldn't have entered WWI. But consider the strength of the group think of the time: if Russia abstained, it would have been the only power to do so. All the real players, and there were more of those then than there are now, entered the war.

By the way, Russia got its coat of arms, the double-headed eagle, from the Paleologos family. Ivan III's wife brought it into the marriage with her. The Bolsheviks threw it out, but it was brought back under Yeltsin and retained by Putin.

The Tsar in particular was a total fool to go to war in 1914. Russia could really gain nothing from it, even if victorious. And the Tsar had the example of 1904-06, which the other European monarchs and leaders didn't have. Then Russia expected to fight an easy war with Japan. Instead it was soundly defeated. Revolution and rebellion swept the empire and the Tsar came close to losing his throne and dynasty. This should have been a clear red flag warning to him. Avoid any future war - my armies are not as effective as I imagined them to be, and my ramshackle empire may fall apart in a losing war. I could lose everything, my throne, dynasty, even perhaps my family and life. But the Tsar was too bone-headed to see this. Perhaps it is fitting that he of all the Euro-elite got killed as a result of his actions in 1914. Had the Tsar simply told Serbia unequivocally that it was on its own, they would have buckled under to Austrian pressures and the horror of WW1, and all that followed it, would have been prevented. Instead the Tsar chose to set in motion a chain of events that would set the whole continent on fire. And he didn't even achieve his illusory goal of protecting Serbia. It was overwhelmed by the Central Powers in 1915.

A recent book on the events that led up to and started WW I, The War that Ended Peace by Margaret MacMillan, contains a passge describing how Nicholas II gave up stonewalling his counselors who were encouraging mobilization and went to bed telling them to do what they wished. I'm terrified that our figurehead president will end up caving on some similarly dangerous issue. He's shown a frightening tendency to hold himself aloof from anything that actually looks like real, constitutional executive activity and involves any exertion, intellectual, political, or whatever.

Territory may have been Russia's best defense, but that was all in the past. Modern warfare changes that somewhat.

I think that's wrong. With all the missile defense systems, they need a lot of territory to be able to conceal their first strike. They also need a lot of territory to make it easier for them to detect incoming missiles, and even more territory if they ever wanted to create a missile defense themselves.

"Have the Russians ever wondered WHY so many people hate them collectively"

I think it's Jews who don't understand why they're hated--the Russians have a sense of, and probably some pride in, their imperial history.

Let's face it, nobody likes the powerful nations of the world. The USA was actually pretty well-liked for a hegemon (outside Latin America and the Middle East) until the neocons and Bush screwed things up.

And we're not the first great power to use ideology as a fig lead--remember the 'Christian values' of the Holy Alliance, or Napoleon's 'Continental System'?

I'm not saying great powers shouldn't care if they're hated--as Machiavelli pointed out, if they hate you enough, they will eventually bring you down. But while a great power can't make everyone like it and will always have enemies, it can manage appearances and opinions to make itself a less desirable target. (This is one of the huge disadvantages of being so close to Israel, for example--it makes us lots of enemies in the Arab world with no new friends except for a few nutty evangelicals and a few legions of New York moneymen.)

Russia of course, has "too much" and is "too big", you say, even though just the US and its Canadian lackeys are as large as the entire proposed Eurasian Union.

You'd have to add Latin America and Europe and parts of East Asia as well since those areas are effectively American dominions and intertwined with American dominated "global" institutions. Brzezinski makes this clear in The Grand Chessboard.

You'd have to add Latin America and Europe and parts of East Asia as well since those areas are effectively American dominions and intertwined with American dominated "global" institutions. Brzezinski makes this clear in The Grand Chessboard.

You are confusing spheres of influence with homelands.

The Eurasian Union is a proposed union of Russians/Rusyns and Kazakhs/Kozaks/Cossacks (same word - same people - descendants of the Cumans). Before Ukrainians called themselves Ukrainians, they called themselves either Rusyns or Kozaks.

Territory is Russia's defense. The further an enemy has to travel in hostile territory the harder it is for them to win e.g. Mongols.

Israel does this too/ Buffer zones to keep barbarians at more than an arms length. For Israel this also means making it more difficult for Palestinian rockets and missiles, keeping them out of range and accuracy

Russia of course, has "too much" and is "too big", you say, even though just the US and its Canadian lackeys are as large as the entire proposed Eurasian Union.

That is not the point. Nobody is proposing chopping up Russia or taking away land that properly belongs to them. The double standard is not in the actual amount of land / population possessed or under de facto control. It is in public attitudes towards expansionism by various powers. Why aren't Russians and Germans treated the same here, in other words, BOTH like Nazis?

Everyone and his dog know that Japan (for example) is a "lackey" of the Yoo Ess of Eh. But there is little danger of it becoming the 51st, or 64th, or 284th State. Not the same with Russian expansionism and the sick dream of "EdinayaroSSia". Is it any wonder, given the history, that Western Ukrainian nationalists fear being flayed alive for speaking Ukrainian rather than Russian?

I think it's Jews who don't understand why they're hated--the Russians have a sense of, and probably some pride in, their imperial history.

This was probably Putin's end game all along. The Ukraine is doing now what the rest of the Soviet Republics did right after the fall. In all of those countries, the ethnic Russian population mostly left to go back to Russia knowing what their futures held. The Ukraine has been in purgatory, neither East nor West, and has slowly deteriorated to the point that it could no longer remain in status quo which is why it kept flopping back and forth, each time with a more extreme regime in power. Russia would like to keep it as a buffer state but the only thing a Russian dominated government could give the Ukraine was corruption, poverty, and some gas on credit so it is not surprising that eventually a Nationalist pro-West faction took over (with a little help) making the separation is final. This was eventually what was going to happen anyway, so at least Putin was able to get something valuable out of the deal. This is not the worst thing that could have happened.

Russia would like to keep it as a buffer state but the only thing a Russian dominated government could give the Ukraine was corruption, poverty, and some gas on credit so it is not surprising that eventually a Nationalist pro-West faction took over (with a little help) making the separation is final.

The government was toppled by rightist nationalists who were opposed to a pro-Russian government no matter how clean it was or how much prosperity it delivered. These rightist nationalists were aided by the US to topple the government.

""Sophia Palaiologina, the niece of the last Orthodox emperor in Constantinople, married the Grand Prince of Moscow Ivan III, thus providing the genealogical link justifying Moscow's view of itself as the rightful Third Rome, heir to the Second Rome, Constantinople.""":

Now, if Putin could convincingly demonstrate that his family is directly related to RASputin, that would help to close the circle of Moscovite matters of state.

Territory may have been Russia's best defense, but that was all in the past. Modern warfare changes that somewhat. This is not 1289, nor 1812, nor 1941 anymore. And why should Russia have some sort of privileged double standard when it comes to land and territory?

Not necessarily. Having a large nation with major population centers spread out is an asset. As the blogger Whiskey likes to point out with Israel, being very small with your major population centers clustered closely makes Israel vulnerable to a single strike from one atomic weapon. But for the USA and Russia we could take an atomic sucker punch and still have the vast majority of the nation remaining. (not that I want to test this theory).

"...but the only thing a Russian dominated government could give the Ukraine was corruption, poverty, and some gas on credit..."

Putin has reined in Russia's oligarchs. The Ukraine is still run by its oligarchs. Ukraine's GDP per capita is far below those of Russia and Belarus because the Ukraine is the only one of the three that is still being run by looters. The new government in Kiev has been appointing billionaire oligarchs as governors of the eastern regions.

I'd say that the only things that a necon-backed government can give the Ukraine is corruption and poverty, but that would not be true. An entry into the EU will eventually translate into race replacement as well.

Putin has reined in Russia's oligarchs. The Ukraine is still run by its oligarchs.....

If that is true, then Putin should forget about lebensraum in Ukraine, and concentrate on quality of life in Russia proper. Let people know the oligarchs are dead, and the people have enough to eat and shoes to wear.

It is in public attitudes towards expansionism by various powers. Why aren't Russians and Germans treated the same here, in other words, BOTH like Nazis?

No truer words were ever spoken. If you look closely enough at Germany, you will find that it is in much the same boat as Russia, territory-wise. Very few good natural defenses (Alps or Caucausus to the south), wide open plains to the east. But modern post-Nazi post-unified Germany has the decency not to be whining and bullying for more land, even for the land that was taken from it. (which doesn't contain Germans any more anyway)

In reply to all my anonymous critics (who might all be the same person), I too would have preferred if the US had kept her nose out. Moving NATO East serves no purpose at this point in history and the Bandera's we helped get into power would make Mussolini cringe and it will only end in tears. The EU is no panacea although their economy at $16 T has far more to offer than Russia's $2.5T including opportunities to emigrate and trade. The tragedy is that the EU does not need another poor relation joining although if I were a German or Frog, I would much rather have the Ukrainians than the Greeks. Maybe they can swap. That having been said, the Ukraine was never going to go anywhere as long as they were just a Russian buffer state. This is why Russia grabbing the Crimea might actually help. The Ukraine had their population replaced a long time ago and now those chickens have come home to roost and this might be the only way out.

Im not clear on the circumstances behind this conversation. It was Russia that first mobilised against the Austrians and France only became involved as a result of the Russian action, when Germany mobilised automatically against both Russia and France.

This also casts doubt on his belief that no one cares about pan-Slavism since that is why the Russians mobilised against Austria.

I liked the way you dropped the knowledge about the Paleologos, Steve. Most of Serbia's national symbols are old Paleologos family crests too. They also got it from a princess. The Serbian flag on the other hand is literally the Russian flag turned upside down. Prince Milos ordered his delegation to a European conference to present that as the flag of newly independent Serbia, Saying 'the westerners won't care, but the Russians will be flattered'. He was right.

Steve, Your premise is over-simplistic and totally ignores the events and forces that more or less fated this conflict upon Russia. It's definitely not a 'territory grab' for the sake of 'territory grabbing' as you seem to imply - it's far, far deeper and more involved than that.

What were are really seeing is the long aftermath of the Gorbachev disaster - a nightmarish almost fantastical period in Russia's long and tragic history in which a literally a madman had total and absolute control of the state. Yes, madman is the only title that adequately describes the galactical stupidity and naiviety of that fool Gorbachev. So catastrophic was that cretin that he reminds me of a description of one of the 'black popes' he supposedly appear at the end of time in all those silly, fake apocalyptic medieaal end-of-times fairy tales you read. Actually "acopcalyptic" is the perfect description of Gorbachev.

You don't need me to pontifictae here that the Ukraine, the seat of the Kievan Rus' is the sacred motherland of the Russian people - it has the same mythical signiface as the Ile de France has to a Frenchman. Basiaclly, most Russians don't even accept ukrainians to be a different people, let alone a different state. They didn't accept then and don't accept it now and will never accept it. All Putin did or was trying to do was to try to put Humpty Dumpty back together again after Gorbachev smashed it in with a sledgehammer - a difficult if not impossible task- and he was making progress there. Alas the disaster that Gorbachev wrought is to massive and extensive for anyone to rectify - it's rather like trying to stuff the blood and brain tissue back into the skull of a man smashed over the head with an axe - impossible, but you'd do anything to put it back, but the forces of nature work against you.

modern post-Nazi post-unified Germany has the decency not to be whining and bullying for more land

Let me just say that Germany's behavior is not a role model for any sane nation. I hope the German's will be able to throw off this culture of self-flagellation, but so far there's little chance of it happening in the near future.

Steve, although you have a brilliant analytical mind, you waste far too much time watching TV and other mass entertainment crap.

To get a real sense of all this, please read Peter Hopkirk's "The Great Game". The whole book is about the 19th century cold war between Tzarist Russia and Imperial Britain. It is one hell of a tale and Hopkirk is a brilliant writer.

The first chapter in that book starts with the Mongol invasion of what we call Russia today. The Russian mind was permanently scarred by this. Running into the Mongols had that effect on a lot of people (not just Russians) but the Russians turned it into a strategic principle - "the fear of encirclement".

Is it any wonder, given the history, that Western Ukrainian nationalists fear being flayed alive for speaking Ukrainian rather than Russian?

Do you know how to speak either of these languages, or Old Church Slavonic? There is barely a dimes worth of difference between them in - some changes in inflection mostly, and different words for modern items in the same way English has "trucks" and "lorries". The primary difference from Ukranian to Russian is in orthography.

I've worshipped among the Rusyns, Ukranians, and Russians for many years now. Its child's play to segue from one Church to the other and sing the divine liturgy with the natives and understand what you are singing with them. Not so going to a Polish or Slovak Catholic Church.

At this moment, Western Europe imports 30% of its gas from Russia, down from 43% last year. Fracking has gained tremendously in support in England, Poland, and Norway. The green loonies have been destroyed in the last couple of weeks. The loss in revenue to Russia will be in the tens of billions. And note that resource extraction is the ONLY industry that Russia has.

Russia is a terminally stupid country, terminally a failure, a kind of white India or Africa, and Putin is its quintessential political expression.

"Territory is Russia's defense. The further an enemy has to travel in hostile territory the harder it is for them to win e.g. Mongols."

--ICBM's have been around for a while...

"Have the Russians ever wondered WHY so many people hate them collectively, and would rather die than cooperate in their empire-building? "

--The Poles have suffered more from the Russians altogether than from the Germans, and this is with WW II in the account. They remember the Nazis, but they respect the Germans for their civilization, while Russia as a state is hated. Russia has no political civilization. It has had excrescences, mutations seeded by Western influence in the 19th century. That is all.

donna death said... "Putin has reined in Russia's oligarchs. The Ukraine is still run by its oligarchs....."

If that is true, then Putin should forget about lebensraum in Ukraine, and concentrate on quality of life in Russia proper. Let people know the oligarchs are dead, and the people have enough to eat and shoes to wear.

What are you babbling about? Putin is popular in large part because he has done exactly this. The Russian standard of living has gone up enormously during Putin's rule.

I think you misconstrue actual meaning of "diminishing marginal returns."

The economic law (Ricardo) is "The Law of Returns," and states that, for any given piece of land, increased inputs will increase output up to a certain point, after which the return on each input will diminish.

That economic law has no validityfor political entities (or for private enterprises, for that matter); in such cases, whether or not the addition is favorable or not (as a rough equivalent of a "return") is determined by the qualities of the addition No matter how large the land area of the original state happens to be, if it hasn't got something felt important to its success, an additon with that quality can certainly augment the "return" on the whole (a nd thus be coveted.(And, not so coincidentally, this is a rationale for behaving associalist states have tended to behave toward neighbors (ol' Bob Macnama's "Domino" theory was (and is) a real thing--he just didn't understand what was behind it.

"bizarre alliance between his own Republic of France and the Czarist autocracy."

No, neighbouring countries are natural enemies. A country on the far side of a neighbour is a natural ally. France did too good a job of allying itself with Russia and established a military understanding with Britain. France was overconfident. Not for the last time.

In prison you never lean over anyone's plate of food, and you never let anyone lean over your food. But it's not about the food. It's the logic of realism.

The West is leaning over Russia. They have to do something about it and the West can't let them succeed. So the ante will be upped until the West gets the message that this is not any kind of miscalculation by Russia.

At this moment, Western Europe imports 30% of its gas from Russia, down from 43% last year.

Europe has had an unusually mild winter. This has nothing to do with the Crimean situation now.

The idea that Russians will run out of customers to sell their gas is based on the comically stupid idea that shale will solve American and global energy problems. It WILL NOT. Google "Art Berman".

Secondly, China is not even at 20 per cent of the GDP per capita of Western Europe and it has several decades worth of growth left. All the Russians need to do is build a pipeline to China and ship the gas. They have already sold forward a lot of oil to the Chinese. Google "Rosneft China deal".

I know you like to bash the Russians because that is a Western pastime. I will only recollect Churchill's refrain - "Russia is not as strong as it looks, it is not as weak as it looks". I actually think that Putin's power will only increase because the whole shale thing is a Wall Street bubble pumped up by snake oil salesmen to sell stocks to the gullible public. When this bubble bursts sanity will return rather abruptly. The Russian gas reserves are NOT based on snake oil shale "figures". They are conventional gas reserves which are the biggest in the world by some order of magnitude (check Berman's presentation on You Tube).

Jerry said: "Russia is a terminally stupid country, terminally a failure, a kind of white India or Africa, and Putin is its quintessential political expression. "

I'm always amazed by the extent of Polish hatred of Russia. Russians think about Poles about as much as Western Europeans do, which is practically never. Poles think about Russia all the time.

Who outside of Poland has ever been interested in Polish art or literature? I can think of more Danish contributions to science than Polish ones. There are provincial oblasts in Russia and the Ukraine and streets in Moscow and St. Petersburg that have produced more great scientists (i.e. more than one) than all of Poland. Copernicus was an ethnic German. Marie Curie was Polish, but tellingly, did all of her work in France.

The reason for this is obvious. Poland did not develop much of a native middle class because most commercial activity in it was for centuries done by Jews. Intellectual achievement is to a large extent done by people with deep middle class roots.

The bourgeoisie, both native European and Jewish, underwent selection pressure for intelligence and hard work, peasants just for hard work and the aristocracy for intelligence and bravery. Surprise, surprise, success in science, technology and the real arts requires intelligence and hard work. Very little native bourgeoise for century upon century translates to very little intellectual achievement. Which is what we see in Poland.

It's not their fault and I wouldn't even spell it out if the above commenter didn't disingenuously project Poland's abject intellectual failure on Russia. But it's true. Intellectually they have the same sort of middle as most Euro countries, but no top. Until relatively recently the bourgeoisie was a small percentage of the population everywhere. Its historical lack would now be felt at the top, not in the middle.

"All Putin did or was trying to do was to try to put Humpty Dumpty back together again after Gorbachev smashed it in with a sledgehammer..."

I agree with that entire comment, but that particular line reminded me of a Russian newspaper article I read recently whose author compared Putin's life's work to restoring a smashed vase and the recovery of the Crimea to putting a beautiful jewel that used to adorn that vase back in its place. Made me tear up a little.

Russia is just a White country acting White. They don't have any alien influence to subdue their Indo-European instincts, like the West now has.

Russia sure wasn't acting white when Lenin, Stalin, and Khrushchev pulled the strings. Back then, it was literally a crime for Russians to act white (or even like living beings rather than Marxist robots.)

Let me just say that Germany's behavior is not a role model for any sane nation. I hope the German's will be able to throw off this culture of self-flagellation, but so far there's little chance of it happening in the near future.

What, you mean giving up Lebensraum? Or do you mean swallowing over a million Turks, and bending over backwards to commies, muslims, and fembos?

What were are really seeing is the long aftermath of the Gorbachev disaster

Gorbachev was a godsend, not a disaster, for Russia - in the same way as Lincoln was godsend for the south.

a nightmarish almost fantastical period in Russia's long and tragic history in which a literally a madman had total and absolute control of the state.

I absolutely am unable to understand why anyone would consider Gorby a madman and not Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev. Do you really want to go back to the glory days of KGB murderers goose-stepping through East Berlin? Or the "glory days" of food shortages and gulags and "psihuskas" full of "fascist traitors" whose only crime was listening to Beatles records?

I need to spend more time with my Romanian friends. They accurately and truthfully blame Ceausescu for their country's misfortunes, and still have parades burning him in effigy.

Actually "acopcalyptic" is the perfect description of Gorbachev.You don't need me to pontifictae here that the Ukraine, the seat of the Kievan Rus' is the sacred motherland of the Russian people

Kievan Rus was not Russia. Nor was it Ukraine. It was its own nation, that evolved into three others over time.

it has the same mythical signiface as the Ile de France has to a Frenchman.

Or Kosovo to a Serb (even though Serbs don't live there anymore), or Konigsberg to a German (even though Germans don't live there anymore), or Jerusalem to a Jew (even though Jews don't have an exclusive presence there anymore), or Mount Ararat to an Armenian (even though Armenians don't live there anymore.)

Times change.

All Putin did or was trying to do was to try to put Humpty Dumpty back together again after Gorbachev smashed it in with a sledgehammer - a difficult if not impossible task- and he was making progress there.

Gorbachev smashed nothing with a sledgehammer. Humpy Dumpty exploded under its own instability.

Do you know how to speak either of these languages, or Old Church Slavonic? There is barely a dimes worth of difference between them in - some changes in inflection mostly, and different words for modern items in the same way English has "trucks" and "lorries". The primary difference from Ukranian to Russian is in orthography.

My dear anonymous COMRADE:

So far you proven that you know absolutely nothing about Eastern European languages and history other than the glorified propaganda of communism.

I bet my toilet seat you are some self-hating Frankfurt-schooled Jewish beatnik teenager in California pretending to be a Russian or Ukrainian.

There is an asymmetry caused by having American radars and potentially missiles on Russia's borders, which makes it very easy for the US to notice (and take down) any launched Russian ICBMs but at the same time making it impossible for Russia to detect American missiles in time, it's even very difficult for them to be able to strike after an American strike.

my Romanian friends. They accurately and truthfully blame Ceausescu for their country's misfortunes, and still have parades burning him in effigy.

Romania is still exactly as large as during Ceausescu, no Romanians live under foreign (as alien as Central Asian Turkic) oppression since Ceausescu's fall. (Actually it's been better because of the independence of Moldavia.) So there's very little reason to feel nostalgia for him.

However, Russia lost her empire, something like a fifth of all Russians came under foreign rule (and often had to flee for their lives), and demographically the country collapsed (no kids born, 40-60 males died like flies, etc.), so there's a lot of reasons for Russians to feel nostalgia for what there was before or to hate the person who brought this loss of status, prestige, etc. about.

As to Lenin and Stalin, probably they were the biggest catastrophe (and indirectly also the cause of what Gorbachov did), but they happened a long time ago. I agree there's little reason for Russians to like them.

"I bet my toilet seat you are some self-hating Frankfurt-schooled Jewish beatnik teenager in California pretending to be a Russian or Ukrainian."

Anyone who says that Gorbachev was a godsend for Russia obviously hates Russia. I don't know why you hate it, I just know that you do.

As for the differences between Russian and Ukrainian, it's not a simple issue. Spoken standard Ukrainian is hard for Russians to understand, but only a relatively small minority of Ukrainians speak that. Most speak what I'd call Russian with a Ukrainian accent. That's easily comprehensible to Russians. Written standard Ukrainian is much easier for Russians than spoken standard Ukrainian.

donna death:Or the "glory days" of food shortages and gulags and "psihuskas" full of "fascist traitors" whose only crime was listening to Beatles records?

That is not how Russians think, or for that matter, non-Westerners. Abstract freedom means nothing to them. So Gorbachev, or the Shah, allowed them to listen to Beatles records? Big deal. As far as Russians go, the Beatles led directly to Pussy Riot.

The Poles have suffered more from the Russians altogether than from the Germans, and this is with WW II in the account. They remember the Nazis, but they respect the Germans for their civilization, while Russia as a state is hated.

Well, Poland received all its civilization from Germany, it should respect them, regardless of any wars.

As to Russia, it is very silly to see claims that Russia has brutalized and persecuted Poland. Poland ruled over much of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus for many centuries and worked doubly hard to keep the Russian natives ignorant and enslaved, either by themselves as the nobles or via the Tatars and Turks. Russia ruled Poland from 1815 to 1918 and during that time oversaw much of its modern development. It then followed up with liberating Poland from Nazi Germany and giving Poland Silesia and Pommerania as recompense for Lvov. Somehow this is brutal persecution. You would think that the Tsar had deported the entire Polish nation to Yakutsk given the way you prattle on.

As for the differences between Russian and Ukrainian, it's not a simple issue. Spoken standard Ukrainian is hard for Russians to understand, but only a relatively small minority of Ukrainians speak that. Most speak what I'd call Russian with a Ukrainian accent. That's easily comprehensible to Russians. Written standard Ukrainian is much easier for Russians than spoken standard Ukrainian.

"Standard" spoken Ukrainian is the Rusyn dialect of Lviv along with a heaping dose of Polish lexigraphical and orthographic borrowings. Since Russian is the dialect of Moscow-Novgorod-St. Petersburg. Since Lviv is about as far from Moscow as you can get in Ukraine, and since it was under heavy Polish influence for centuries while totally independent of Russia, making its dialect the standard of course leads to difficulties.

Written standard Ukrainian memorializes the pronunciational changes present in Lviv and of course slathers on the Polish borrowings, since it was created by the publishing houses in Austrian Galicia in the 1800's. If you know what these changes are, you can handle a lot of the different words.

If standard Ukrainian had been based on the dialect and lexography of Kiev instead, it would be much closer to Russian. Of course Ukrainians compensate for these difficulties by simply either not speaking, reading, and writing "their" language, and using Russian instead, or by using Surzhyk - the Ukrainian-Russian pidgin language. Its remarkable that 70% of the people in Kiev speak Russian normally. Probably because Galician Ukrainian does not suit them due to its differences from their own native Rusyn dialect.

I bet my toilet seat you are some self-hating Frankfurt-schooled Jewish beatnik teenager in California pretending to be a Russian or Ukrainian.

I am a 40 year old American Catholic from Pennsylvania. As stated, I've worshipped with my Ruthenian, Ukrainian and Russian compadres for a few decades now in their own languages (IMHO Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom was never meant to be in English). I've been the one man choir at daily Mass in Ukrainian and Slavonic and sung in the choir. When I don't know something I get my Belarussian Orthodox friend to tell me about it and make sure I comprehend.

I suppose you can make of that whatever you wish. I know what I know, and what I can read and say and sing in those languages.

If you want to go on thinking I am a Jewish tennage beatnik from California, be my guest.

"--The Poles have suffered more from the Russians altogether than from the Germans, and this is with WW II in the account."

Nonsense, German killed more Poles than Russians or even Russians combined with Soviets.

"They remember the Nazis, but they respect the Germans for their civilization, while Russia as a state is hated. " That is actually quite true, although to a large extent compensation for losing the struggle for the territories of today's Ukraine, Belarus and Ukraine."It then followed up with liberating Poland from Nazi Germany and giving Poland Silesia and Pommerania as recompense for Lvov."We had no freaking interest in that terriotorial exchange givinf Lvov, one of the pearls of Poland, to Banderites and Vilnius, another pearl, to Samogitians.In 1945 I would prefer to have 1939 borders of Poland, even with the whole East Prussia going to Russia as an exclave. Today of course it is too late. We have to live with what we have,a country smaller thatn in 1939 and that lost around 50% of the pre-war territory despite nominally being a "victor".

Russia has far more.of a connection to Siberia than Ukraine, even the parts that were once "novorossiya".

Muscovy crossed the Urals and conquered the khanate of Siberia in the early 1600s (just a few years before the founding of Virginia). Within fifty years, they had reached the Pacific. A string of mid sized Russian cities hug the northern edge of the steppe across all of Asia. It's core Russian territory.

In contrast, the Turks were strong enough to keep Russians from taking Ukraine until the late 1700s. Until then, the unsettled "wild fields" was the land where Turkish slavers harvested women and children for the slave markets of caffa. When it was finally settled, about the same time as Ohio, it was a Pan European enterprise, just like the settling of the American west.

Russia should focus on Asia. European meddling has always brought grief.

All Putin has to do is sit back and watch the bankers/IMF pauperize the Ukraine. The new junta has put billionaires in charge of provinces. The IMF is working out a deal to loan Ukraine a few billion in exchange for chopping pensions and wages by 40%. Within a year of the new austerity measures people are going to be screaming. And all the gay pride parades and organized homosexualism isn't going to make the gnawing hunger and cold go away. It won't be an issue for Masha Gessen and her Tranzi friends, of course. She collects passports and children like penny candy and is a "citizen" of three countries.

"All Putin has to do is sit back and watch the bankers/IMF pauperize the Ukraine."

Normally I'd agree that would be the best move - let the neocons oligarch allies loot Ukraine and step in when the locals are screaming for it - but the neocons are so feral and so determined to bring him down I think he might feel he is backed into a corner and has to do something now.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.